PaulILMFan wrote:Blade Runner 2049.........what a long & boring film. Looks good set & FX wise but man did they really mess the film up. Its a simple story just poorly edited the scenes do not flow it takes 1.5 hours to really kick into gear then after a few brief action sequences it goes back to walking through treacle mode! Shame as it looks so good & shows a harsh & believeable future earth.

Makes STMP editing look like MTV

Haven't see the movie yet, but Deakins is one of my favorite cinematographers and he is getting Oscar talk for this.

Don't fall for the excessive hype Shane the movie is weak conceptually its like a 163 min commercial for a hellish dystopian near future. It does that really well like a cross between Outland, 12 Monkeys (B Willis) & Brazil but unfortunately that is about all it does give you a fantastic but hellish near future earth.

I disliked Star Trek Into Darkness but even that contains way more entertainment than BR2049 and even TFA I really did not care for either but that also contains more entertainment and is less boring than BR2049.

Ford shows up for about 2 pages of dialog & about 15 min's total screen time. He has allowed himself to be used to sell the movie but Ryan Gosling is the only actor in almost the entire movie the rest come & go or in Ford's case are barely ever in it (he does not even show up until the last 40 min's). Ford is more of a cameo with about 3 scenes in total.

They spend around 2 hours giving us a backstory to K's (Ryan Gosling) character then he gets killed off & they cut to Harrison having a happy ending which also ends very sharply. This is so frustrating the film had potential but it fails to execute & deliver the story.

They also bring 3 characters back from the 1982 movie. Sean Young in her prime still cannot figure if its her or a perfect CGI facial replacement skinjob the work is flawless in bright light but she only has about 1 min screentime & serves no real purpose either. I think she must be another actress with a similar likeness but so close to the original beauty.

Kmart wrote:I remember thinking on first screening that the original didn't get 'into gear' till he was searching for the origin of the snake scales ... and that it went back to slow mode shortly thereafter. Still thought it was a great movie, and within five or six more viewings it became a classic for me. I've probably seen it ... maybe 120 times by now? Pretty good, considering I also like the novel and figure a good movie could be made from it that didn't owe much to the Scott film.

I haven't seen 2049 yet, but I'm very interested in it, as I keep thinking it is its own thing rather than a by-the-numbers sequel. And BR deserves that kind of approach. Plus (and this might be due to all the David Lynch exposure I'm getting lately), I'm starting to really get into s-l-o-w movies ... it may have started with STALKER about 10 years back. Anyway, if I can find a decent theater up here showing it in 2D, I'm going as soon as I am out from under a lot of writing deadlines. I remember a particular theater showing GRAVITY that was about a half-hour away and that looked good, so I'm hoping BR turns up there in a non3D form. I have seen maybe three movies in the theater since GRAVITY (which I saw three times, JUST to marvel at the visuals), so you understand this is a BIG deal for me.

Does anybody think the Academy is going to feel ashamed enough to award Deakins this time round? I've covered several of his films for ICG and HDVP, and except for HAIL CAESAR, every time I thought, 'this one is going to be it.'

Lower your expectations...a lot BR2049 is a mess and not in a good way. If you do not mind sitting there for almost 3.5 hours (lots of comic book movie ads attached to the print) . BR2049 takes a long time to get going & when it does its all over effectively. This movie makes STMP look like 1980s MTV to me editing wise the pace & timing is way off shots go on for ages but serve no real purpose as its established very early on the type of dingy dark murky atmosphere so no need to continue in that style. There is not a single shot in the entire movie which even remotely matches anything spectacle wise from the 1982 sadly!

If 2001 was a 10/10 and 2010 was say an 8/10 & BR 1982 a 10/10 then BR2049 would be about a 5 & most of that is due to how well they depict the near earth future. That alone is worth seeing but I think Deakins work is over hyped here like the actual movie itself. Most of its murky, misty, foggy or at night to conceal the need to create more expensive CG backgrounds. Its not even Hammer horror atmospheric mist or murk either more like the digital softening filters on the camera lense added in post production. The light does not seem natural at times the movie has a digital look about it which is not very pretty. They even take the cheap option with some of the flying cars the cityscapes are bathed in a weird dark grey to mask detail I half expected Jack The Ripper to jump out its so murky at times!

Kmart wrote:I'm starting to really get into s-l-o-w movies ... it may have started with STALKER about 10 years back. Anyway, if I can find a decent theater up here showing it in 2D, I'm going as soon as I am out from under a lot of writing deadlines. I remember a particular theater showing GRAVITY that was about a half-hour away and that looked good, so I'm hoping BR turns up there in a non3D form. I have seen maybe three movies in the theater since GRAVITY (which I saw three times, JUST to marvel at the visuals), so you understand this is a BIG deal for me.

Does anybody think the Academy is going to feel ashamed enough to award Deakins this time round? I've covered several of his films for ICG and HDVP, and except for HAIL CAESAR, every time I thought, 'this one is going to be it.'

To the latter bold first, I would hate to think AMPAS would give someone an equivalent of a Lifetime Achievement award and not for the work at hand but they have a habit of doing that for others so wouldn't be too surprised if it happened here. To your first point, lol, I am in about the same boat. I just finished watching Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds the other day again after several years and just enjoyed how it takes its time to let scenes breathe. The space makes the violence and action more startling. So many movies today are just non-stop action, action, action, there isn't time for any kind of tension to build or develop. I am almost looking for the anti-action or "let's destroy the Earth for the twentieth time" movie at this point.

That's just my old curmudgeonly opinion.

@PhilILMFan, don't worry about me falling for the hype. One thing that's happened to me over the last several years is a buildup of mental armor increasingly impervious to Hollywood bullshit marketing(and that includes the new Star Wars movies too, which I thought have been fun so far but okay….reach higher Lucasfilm).

By the way, how many ****ing trailers did this BR2049 have anyway? Twenty? They never stopped!

I have adopted each new one pretty faithfully. I went from theatrical to 'slighty extra violence/int'l'' version that was on Criterion when I got my LD player, then starting in 92 or 93 I watched the director's cut exclusively up till the time Final Cut appeared, and I think I've only watched FC since then.

I have never seen the workprint version but I have got a 3disc Blu that includes it. I'm now wondering WHY I never looked at it, because when I first heard about it all those years back, it sounded fascinating. Then again, I think some bits from it are in the DANGEROUS DAYS doc, which is something I actually HAVE seen a few times now (though usually I just jump to the VFX section.)

Was figuring I'd just rewatch the FC before seeing 2049, but now you've brought up an interesting point, because for my theatrical screenings of BR, my fave was the DC when it came out back in what, 92?

Will have to study up on differences between DC and FC, as I honestly don't remember much, just the lip sync stuff when searching for the snake scale source and that they did face replacements on Zhora for the glass window pane breaks.

Kmart wrote:I have adopted each new one pretty faithfully. I went from theatrical to 'slighty extra violence/int'l'' version that was on Criterion when I got my LD player, then starting in 92 or 93 I watched the director's cut exclusively up till the time Final Cut appeared, and I think I've only watched FC since then.

I have never seen the workprint version but I have got a 3disc Blu that includes it. I'm now wondering WHY I never looked at it, because when I first heard about it all those years back, it sounded fascinating. Then again, I think some bits from it are in the DANGEROUS DAYS doc, which is something I actually HAVE seen a few times now (though usually I just jump to the VFX section.)

Was figuring I'd just rewatch the FC before seeing 2049, but now you've brought up an interesting point, because for my theatrical screenings of BR, my fave was the DC when it came out back in what, 92?

Will have to study up on differences between DC and FC, as I honestly don't remember much, just the lip sync stuff when searching for the snake scale source and that they did face replacements on Zhora for the glass window pane breaks.

Yeah DC was 92. I'd only rented BR a couple of times before that so DC became my version of choice. That work print I'm not sure if I watched it either.

One change from the Final Cut too was the dove shot at the end replacing that lovely blue sky with more appropriate cityscape.

I watched BR Final Cut a few nights ago. I have to say that has to be one of the best "Special Editions" I've ever watched. I couldn't rely detect anything jumping out. Ridley did add the two dancing girls with the hockey masks from the Int'l Cut and the dove shot I mentioned. But that's about it.

Watched the work print too. Aside from what appear to be a few lingering shots for a few more seconds, there wasn't much different.

I was just about to rewatch BR this weekend (an internet friend is coming into town for some gaming con this weekend and was thinking maybe I would see 2049 in theater with him if he is still around on Tuesday), but tomorrow is my wife's birthday, so I think we're going to watch STALKER instead (unfortunately we still have the DVD, can't QUITE justify spending to upgrade to the blu-ray till I have some business-related justification to get the Criterion.)

That is semi-fitting, as one review I read of 2049 evoked STALKER (thus raising my expectations exponentially) and HER (which along with CHILDREN OF MEN and UNDER THE SKIN are the three best SF movies I've seen this century, with EX MACHINA and SERENITY rounding out The Five, I guess.)

If I actually DO see 2049 this week, I'll make a point of rewatching the 82 the night before I go, and then weigh in here with my thoughts (assuming I have any.)

TylerMirage wrote:Here's the trailer for Rampage, the next movie with The Rock that will probably and unfortunately be panned because it's just another generic destruction action movie, based on a video game.

Not gonna' lie, though, it looks like fun. And some solid VFX work with George the ape. Am I crazy for saying that it looks almost on par with Weta's Apes work?

No, you're not crazy for saying that. That's Weta's work on George. I'm sure the filmmakers just went: "Hey, let's use that great ape asset you have, with modifications."I was personally underwhlemed by it all. I wanted to see something wild ala DNegs Pacific Rim 2 or ILM's Pac Rim 1 creatures. This is just a dull ape, wolf, and a croc.

ShaneP wrote:No, you're not crazy for saying that. That's Weta's work on George. I'm sure the filmmakers just went: "Hey, let's use that great ape asset you have, with modifications."I was personally underwhlemed by it all. I wanted to see something wild ala DNegs Pacific Rim 2 or ILM's Pac Rim 1 creatures. This is just a dull ape, wolf, and a croc.

So while a movie like Pacific Rim would have del Toro just go balls-out crazy with designs because 'why not?', this movie is like "let's make it grounded". Which is not the way to do things, but hey, I guess that's why I'm not a Hollywood filmmaker.

Glad to be back. 70 hour weeks on a TV show are good to pay the bills, but it really interferes with ILMfan time.

I also enjoyed how they critiqued modern democracies and bureaucracies with all of the endless meetings and approvals for the every task. Approval for this. Authorization for that. The film also utilized an effective combination of old school man in suit/CG/miniatures,etc. I thought the whole combo work well together as a whole. The tone of the film felt right. Enjoyed everything about this movie.If I had one nitpick it would be maybe they could have spent more time building up to Godzilla's return. I mean, we're just minutes in and he's there attacking. But, that's just a nitpick. The movie just gets off with a bang and never lets up. The score was great too. Acting was solid. Satomi Ishihara, who was also in Attack on Titan, is very good as the U.S. Ambassador's spokesperson.

I hope this creative team at Toho makes more of these kinds of Godzilla films. Forget Hollywood interpretations. When they take Godzilla out of the Japanese context, he just doesn't work as well.

Decided to bite the bullet and check out the xXx franchise. The first and third movie are on Netflix, so I had to rent the second one off iTunes. Will watch the third one later this week, so I've only seen the first and second so far. Decent enough action movies. I also watched Next on Netflix (the Nic Cage one where he can see into the future), and while researching some of the crew for the movie(s) before watching them, discovered that I unknowingly did a double-header of Lee Tamahori with xXx: State of the Union and Next. I was trying to figure out why I recognized Lee's name, and then I remembered that he was the 'star' of a Youtube video that listed movies with some of the worst visual effects. Poor Tamahori was on that list twice for Along Came a Spider (opening car crash) and Day Another Day (James Bond surfing).

Boy, Tamahori is right up there with Stephen Sommers on directors who just do not know how to properly use CGI. As mentioned, Along Came a Spider had that really terrible car crash, Die Another Day had the CG ocean and green-screen with Bond surfing, xXx: State of the Union had some cringe-worthy green-screen with people driving, crashing digital cars and really bad CG trains and helicopters in the finale, and then Next had that money-shot from the trailer of the exploding ships/dock, along with (you might've sensed a pattern here) a rather shoddy CG truck rolling down a hill. All of this is sad, because the movies are good-to-great action flicks with some top-notch practical effects, but those scenes are brought down by just a handful of YIKES computer work. Not even Farrar's supervision on State of the Union could save it.

The xXx State of the Union DVD commentary with Farrar and DeQuattro is more entertaining than the movie itself.

Yes, Tamahori's use of CG for his films roundly stinks to Sommer's levels. Actually, some of the earlier The Mummy and The Mummy Returns was solid to very good with some stinkers and two God-awfuls for Returns(don't need to say it).